Appearances
Re: Appearances
What really bugs me is why do I always have to be careful how I talk now? Family can make remarks or talk about church stuff with their condescending tone and comments but if I were to talk about activities or our church service . . . all hell would bust loose and we would be badgered to show BCV for authority!
So I keep up the appearance of shutting my mouth and never adding to the conversation because of the potential to start a crap storm! Which leads to the next question, why can't I bring stuff up without being judged or criticized? Why am I the bad guy? I'm not gossiping about the preacher or song leader the way they are, isn't gossiping a sin? Thought it was, but just like gluttony, there is a justification or work around if we are talking about the other person's bad behavior.
Rant over
So I keep up the appearance of shutting my mouth and never adding to the conversation because of the potential to start a crap storm! Which leads to the next question, why can't I bring stuff up without being judged or criticized? Why am I the bad guy? I'm not gossiping about the preacher or song leader the way they are, isn't gossiping a sin? Thought it was, but just like gluttony, there is a justification or work around if we are talking about the other person's bad behavior.
Rant over
Re: Appearances
Sounds like he's never heard of church autonomy! Doesn't he know that the CoC isn't a denomination!?gordie91 wrote: The but was we were not very committed and he even sent a letter to the church my parents attend using the same language.
Re: Appearances
I hope it felt good! We are warned against gossip. It is the most unreported sin in the CoC. They are picking at a spec while ignoring the beam. You can use the Bible in various ways. Where in the Bible is the word denomination. It does not exist. Have them show BCV for that. In protestant churches you might find an empty cross not one with the body of Jesus. After all that is an idol and an empty cross is not? Part of the reformation caused Icons to be tossed out as idols. Congregational singing began to be used and an English Bible. Even Martin Luther wrote songs for congregational singing. Today you can find endless variations on the theme.gordie91 wrote:What really bugs me is why do I always have to be careful how I talk now? Family can make remarks or talk about church stuff with their condescending tone and comments but if I were to talk about activities or our church service . . . all hell would bust loose and we would be badgered to show BCV for authority!
So I keep up the appearance of shutting my mouth and never adding to the conversation because of the potential to start a crap storm! Which leads to the next question, why can't I bring stuff up without being judged or criticized? Why am I the bad guy? I'm not gossiping about the preacher or song leader the way they are, isn't gossiping a sin? Thought it was, but just like gluttony, there is a justification or work around if we are talking about the other person's bad behavior.
Rant over
Re: Appearances
It did feel kind of good to rant.
I think the comment about ignoring the beam is an understatement. I remember them going on and on about following only the bible, or where is that specified in the bible when they question things in Orthodoxy. BTW, many and all of their "problem" practices are documented through out history and pre-date the reformation by many centuries not to mention their own beginning here in the U.S.. Yet, the argument cannot go forward because there is no mention or even a close mention found in the bible. So, that makes me the outcast or heretic because there is no BCV to quote against their gripe. It seems there is no real way to argue or even exchange different views with them because their frame of reference at best goes to the 1500's and at worst the early 1800's and their beloved "restoration" of the true church.
They use all kinds of historical charts and even clinging to known heretical groups to try and show "the true church" or faithful remnant through history when in fact, I can point to moments in time and precisely chart the Orthodox Church through history. So if they know the "true church" was preserved why did it not make it to the pages of history until the 1800's in America? To me, the CoC is just another protestant denomination in the long progression of time starting in 1517.
So, again, why am I the out cast, contrarian or rebel? It doesn't make sense and it feels like the inmates are running the asylum. So, I keep up the appearance with them as non-confrontational and move on - where is the equity or fairness with these folk? I don't know, so I'll just rant here.
I think the comment about ignoring the beam is an understatement. I remember them going on and on about following only the bible, or where is that specified in the bible when they question things in Orthodoxy. BTW, many and all of their "problem" practices are documented through out history and pre-date the reformation by many centuries not to mention their own beginning here in the U.S.. Yet, the argument cannot go forward because there is no mention or even a close mention found in the bible. So, that makes me the outcast or heretic because there is no BCV to quote against their gripe. It seems there is no real way to argue or even exchange different views with them because their frame of reference at best goes to the 1500's and at worst the early 1800's and their beloved "restoration" of the true church.
They use all kinds of historical charts and even clinging to known heretical groups to try and show "the true church" or faithful remnant through history when in fact, I can point to moments in time and precisely chart the Orthodox Church through history. So if they know the "true church" was preserved why did it not make it to the pages of history until the 1800's in America? To me, the CoC is just another protestant denomination in the long progression of time starting in 1517.
So, again, why am I the out cast, contrarian or rebel? It doesn't make sense and it feels like the inmates are running the asylum. So, I keep up the appearance with them as non-confrontational and move on - where is the equity or fairness with these folk? I don't know, so I'll just rant here.
Re: Appearances
Good for you!! It's why we're here.gordie91 wrote: I don't know, so I'll just rant here.
Yeah, I remember well that I wasn't to discuss my spiritual / church life in front of my [close cofc relative]......she could discuss her church buddies and church things all day long,
but if I discussed anything about mine I got the dagger looks and silent treatment.
It drove a wedge; it truly did. Sad.
~Stone Cold Ivyrose Austin~
Re: Appearances
C of C is about the same age as the Mormon church, right? Late 1800s...gordie91 wrote: They use all kinds of historical charts and even clinging to known heretical groups to try and show "the true church" or faithful remnant through history when in fact, I can point to moments in time and precisely chart the Orthodox Church through history. So if they know the "true church" was preserved why did it not make it to the pages of history until the 1800's in America? To me, the CoC is just another protestant denomination in the long progression of time starting in 1517..
Re: Appearances
Yes, the Mormon church and the CoC are approximately the same age, and both of them have a very strong "restoration" theme going. Most of us know that the CoC claims to have come into being in A.D. 30, but in the book 'The Stone-Campbell Movement' written by Leroy Garrett, he writes that the beginning date of what we recognize as the CoC was actually on Sunday, August 18, 1889.
"If I had to define my own theme, it would be that of a person who absorbed some of the worst the church has to offer, yet still landed in the loving arms of God." (From the book 'Soul Survivor' by Philip Yancy)
Re: Appearances
Leroy Garrett was the best advocate and historian the cofc ever had...may he rest in peace. His works are well worth reading.Opie wrote:Yes, the Mormon church and the CoC are approximately the same age, and both of them have a very strong "restoration" theme going. Most of us know that the CoC claims to have come into being in A.D. 30, but in the book 'The Stone-Campbell Movement' written by Leroy Garrett, he writes that the beginning date of what we recognize as the CoC was actually on Sunday, August 18, 1889.
~Stone Cold Ivyrose Austin~
Re: Appearances
So incredibly true. My parents know that I've left to some extent, but they aren't willing to recognize it yet beyond the mandatory, "But...you know the truth..." guilt trip. Even though they acknowledge that not everyone in a coC is going to make it to heaven, their attitude is that the name on the building is the starting point rather than looking at the doctrinal positions. It went to the point in the discussion where, after seeing the ACNA parish we're at, they commented that they said they wanted to see us somewhere at least closer to the truth. My dad then even went so far as to say that he thought Mormons were closer than what he saw that day.gordie91 wrote:So true. For me things were all good until finally I sent my exit email. We traveled a lot during that time because of my child's college sports career. We had actually started going to another church, the heretical and damned Orthodox Church (didn't they break from the Catholics? ). I felt like we should remove ourselves with the exit letter so that people would not talk or bug us about not being there on Sundays. I too, stopped the singing, praying and everything else. (Towards the end I felt like I was being hypocritical) So when the preacher responded to my exit email he replied with the obligatory "sorry to see you leave" and "hate to see you go" BUT, there is always a but. The but was we were not very committed and he even sent a letter to the church my parents attend using the same language. Why were we not committed? We weren't there much and didn't do all the things above plus we didn't have the kid (youngest) in bible class on Wednesday Night even though we explained that reason multiple times - behaviors, routine and medication schedule.
I said all that above because in my final response to my father-in-law I wrote, I asked him, would he rather me warm a pew and be there every time the doors are open all the while not believing or in agreement with the CoC. Would my presence save me? Yes in a sense it is all about appearances.
Here's the thing, I was friends with and then dated a preacher's daughter for a while. It was mostly long distance and we wanted to get married. When I got back to the US from Afghanistan, one of her first things was, "You need to find a place that is coC." Mind you, no one was questioning what we were doing when we went on vacation together. Never mind the fact we spent a weekend in DC or traveled a couple of other places without any problem, even though we were sharing hotel rooms. But when I told her about the congregations in the area where I was stationed (I was still open to being coC, but that was a whole different level of crazy in that town...even my parents saw it), her answer was: just place membership and attend enough for people to know who you are, even if it isn't every service. Along with some other factors, it wasn't a good idea to continue on because of how she was pushing on that for the appearance. She was a great person otherwise, it just felt very suffocating in having to present the image of being part of a coC "royal family", even having come out of an "upper class" level one myself. I missed her and thought about trying to get back with her shortly after the breakup, but remembered that it wasn't a good idea.
So the idea of showing up somewhere just to look right to me is lying. It's hypocritical.
So good on you for getting out of there. Sorry you had to deal with the gossip of the preacher contacting family. That is out of line and arrogant to no end. "You don't want to play ball? Fine, we'll work at dividing your family to 'correct' you and because we feel it's right, we'll just call it correction by necessary inference." Talk about bitter apples.
Re: Appearances
That's what I thought. But the Mormon church has grown in leaps and bounds since then while the C of C has remained stagnant.Opie wrote:Yes, the Mormon church and the CoC are approximately the same age, and both of them have a very strong "restoration" theme going. Most of us know that the CoC claims to have come into being in A.D. 30, but in the book 'The Stone-Campbell Movement' written by Leroy Garrett, he writes that the beginning date of what we recognize as the CoC was actually on Sunday, August 18, 1889.